OVERLOOKED and UNDERCOUNTED - Home - CCLP...STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET IN COLORADO By Diana M....

OVERLOOKED and UNDERCOUNTEDSTRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET in COLORADO

Prepared for:

OVERLOOKED AND UNDERCOUNTED:

STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET IN COLORADO

By Diana M. Pearce, Ph.D. March 2007

Director, Center for Women’s Welfare School of Social Work

University of Washington

Prepared with Bu Huang, Ph.D. (statistical analysis), and Maureen Newby, Ph.D., Victoria England, Julia Robinson, and Deborah Warren at the University of Washington,

School of Social Work, Center for Women’s Welfare

THE BREADTH AND DEPTH OF OUR FINDINGS INDICATE THAT STRUCTURAL AND

SOCIETAL SOLUTIONS ARE NEEDED. MANY FAMILIES ARE CAUGHT IN A “POLICY

GAP” WHERE THEY EARN TOO MUCH TO QUALIFY FOR GOVERNMENTAL WORK

SUPPORT PROGRAMS BUT TOO LITTLE TO SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES.

Mile High United Way maximizes the power of collective generosity. We focus on three related initiatives: School Readiness, Youth Success and Adult Self Sufficiency. Our mission is achieved when young children from low-income families are prepared to succeed when they begin school, at-risk youth graduate from high school and individuals and families achieve financial stability and independence. We can do more together. To learn more visit http://www.unitedwaydenver.org/.

Chambers Family Fund invests time, expertise and funding in organizations that help women become economically self-sufficient, enhance the early care and education of children, strengthen democratic values and enrich the arts and culture. The Foundation seeks opportunities to fund organizations that serve a unique role in the community, state or region. Many of its grants are made through strategic alliances and partnerships with other funders and grantees.

About The Denver Foundation: Established in 1925, The Denver Foundation is a community foundation dedicated to improving life in Metro Denver through philanthropy, leadership, and strengthening the community. Community foundations throughout the United States work with local donors and visionary nonprofits to improve life in their regions. More information is available on the web at www.denverfoundation.org.

A catalyst for social change since 1987, The Women’s Foundation of Colorado’s mission is to build resources and lead change so that the women and girls of Colorado are full and equal participants in society.

Our Goal: That every woman in Colorado is economically self-sufficient, and every girl in Colorado is on the path to economic self-sufficiency in adulthood.

AC

KN

OW

LED

GE

ME

NTS

FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE INSUFFICIENT INCOME

FOR THEIR BASIC NEEDS, AND FAMILIES WITH VERY YOUNG CHILDREN ARE

PARTICULARLY LIKELY TO HAVE INSUFFICIENT INCOME.

The Self-Sufficiency Standard used by this report was developed by Dr. Diana Pearce, who was at that time Director of the Women and Poverty Project at Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW). The Ford Foundation provided funding for its original development.

This report has been prepared with the essential help of the staff of the Center for Women’s Welfare at the University of Washington, particularly Bu Huang (statistical analysis), Maureen Newby (analysis and writing), as well as Victoria England, Julia Robinson, and Deborah Warren.

We also wish to thank the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute which assisted in the development of this report and its release, especially Suzette Tucker-Welch and Kathy White. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the contribution to the development of the first “Overlooked and Undercounted” report of Rebecca Cassidy, demographer, as well as the editorial contributions of Maureen Golga and Aimee Durfee.

The conclusions and opinions contained within this document do not necessarily reflect the opinions of those listed above. Nonetheless, any mistakes are the author’s responsibility. P

RE

FAC

E

Diana Pearce Center for Women’s Welfare

School of Social Work, University of Washington 4101 15th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98105

T E L 206-616-3543 FAX 206-543-1228 http://depts.washington.edu/selfsuff/

The Center for Women’s Welfare at the University of Washington is devoted to furthering the goal of economic justice for women and their families. Under the direction of Dr. Diana Pearce, the Center researches questions involving poverty measures, public policy and programs that address income adequacy. The Center partners with a range of non-profit, women’s, children’s, and community-based groups to evaluate public policy, to devise tools for analyzing wage adequacy and to help create programs to strengthen public investment in low-income women, children, and families.

The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, a project of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, promotes justice and economic security for lower income Coloradans by putting research into action. As both a resource and catalyst, the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute works for changes in public policy through timely, credible and accessible policy analysis, education, advocacy and coalition building.

WHILE FAMILIES WITH LESS EDUCATION ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE INADEQUATE

INCOME, RACE AND GENDER ARE MORE IMPORTANT PREDICTORS OF INADEQUATE

INCOME THAN IS EDUCATIONAL LEVEL. FOR EXAMPLE, WHITE MEN WITH HIGH

SCHOOL DEGREES ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE ADEQUATE INCOME THAN WOMEN

OF COLOR WITH A BACHELOR’S DEGREE OR HIGHER.

TAB

LE O

F C

ON

TEN

TS

THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY STANDARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 1

FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 3

A. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME ADEQUACY . . . . . . PAGE 3

B. RACE/ETHNICITY, GEOGRAPHY AND CITIZENSHIP . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 4

C. GENDER AND FAMILY COMPOSITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 9

D. GENDER, FAMILY COMPOSITION AND RACE/ETHNICITY . . . . . PAGE 12

E. DEPTH OF POVERTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 13

F. EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 13

G. EMPLOYMENT AND WORK PATTERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 15

PROFILE OF COLORADO FAMILIES WITH INADEQUATE INCOME . . . . PAGE 21

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 22

ENDNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 24

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 25

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 26

DATA TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 27

OVERLOOKED AND UNDERCOUNTED, A LARGE AND DIVERSE GROUP OF FAMILIES

ARE EXPERIENCING ECONOMIC DISTRESS IN COLORADO. FOR EVERY FAMILY WHICH

FALLS UNDER THE OFFICIAL FEDERAL POVERTY LINE, THERE ARE TWO FAMILIES WHO

ARE ABOVE IT BUT STILL CANNOT PAY FOR THEIR MOST BASIC NEEDS.

OVERLOOOKED AND UNDERCOUNTED: STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET IN COLORADO

1

INTRODUCTION

Though innovative for its time, many researchers and policy analysts have concluded that the official poverty measure, developed over four decades ago by Mollie Orshansky, is not only methodologically out of date, but also no longer an accurate measure of poverty. Beginning with studies such as Ruggles’ Drawing the Line (1990), and Renwick and Bergman’s “Basic Needs Budget” (1993), a series of critiques culminated in the early 1990s with Congress mandating a comprehen-sive study by the National Academy of Sciences. The Academy brought together hundreds of scientists, commissioned studies and papers, and compiled a set of recommendations, which were summarized in the 1995 book, Measuring Poverty: A New Approach. Despite this consensus, no changes have been made in the FPL in the decade since the report’s release. Even the Census Bureau now characterizes the federal poverty measure as a “statistical yardstick rather than a complete description of what people and families need to live.”2

Taking into account these critiques, yet taking a fresh approach, the Self-Sufficiency Standard was developed to provide a more accurate, nuanced measure of income adequacy.3 While designed to address the major short-comings of the FPL, the Self-Sufficiency Standard also reflects the realities faced by today’s working parents, such as childcare and taxes, which are not addressed in the original poverty measure. The Standard also takes advantage of the greater accessibility, timeliness, and accuracy of data currently available compared to four

decades ago by incorporating new data sources and methodology to improve accuracy as they become available.

The major differences between the Self-Sufficiency Standard and the FPL include:

• The Standard is based on all major budget items faced by working adults: housing, childcare, food, health care, transportation and taxes. In contrast, the FPL is based on only one item—a 1960s food budget, updated only for inflation. The Standard allows different costs to increase at different rates and does not assume that any one cost will always be a fixed percentage of the budget.

• The Standard uses the current assumption that all adults work to support their families, and thus allows for work-related expenses for each adult such as transportation, taxes, and, when there are young children, childcare. The FPL is based implicitly on a demographic model of a two-parent family with a stay-at-home wife.

• The Standard varies geographically and is calculated on a county-specific basis, while the FPL is the same regardless of where one lives in the continental United States.

• The Standard reflects different costs by the age of children. This factor is particularly important for

In the most striking socio-economic trend of the past quarter century—termed “economic inequality” by economists—the rich became richer, the poor became poorer, and the middle class became smaller. With costs rising faster than incomes, more and more families are facing economic hardships as they struggle to cover basic needs such as food, shelter, health care and childcare. Yet even as an increasing number of families’ budgets are stretched to the breaking point, the proportion of families in the United States who are officially designated by the federal government as “poor” has fallen to only about 10 percent in 2005.1 Since many federal and state “safety net” programs only define those with incomes below the official Federal Poverty Level (FPL) as “in need”, as this report will show, a large and diverse group of families who are experiencing economic distress are being routinely overlooked and undercounted.

This report profiles the “overlooked and undercounted” of Colorado, revealing the extent and nature of the hidden hardships all too many Colorado residents are facing. Central to this analysis is the Self-Sufficiency Standard—a realistic and highly specific measure of income adequacy developed as an alternative to the federal poverty measure—which is used here to determine which households have inadequate income to pay for their most basic needs. The report analyzes U.S. Census data across a wide range of household characteristics (e.g., geographic location, race and ethnicity, employment patterns, gender, and occupation), contrasting the results when the Federal Poverty Level and the Self-Sufficiency Standard are compared to household income. The object is to develop a clear picture of who lacks enough to meet their needs, where they live, and the characteristics of their households. With this information, the findings and conclusions can inform and guide the creation of policies to enable the overlooked and undercounted to achieve economic self-sufficiency.

I. THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY STANDARD

THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY STANDARD FOR COLORADO

2

childcare costs, but also for food and health care costs, which vary by age. While the FPL takes into account the number of adults and children, it does not vary the level by the age of children.

The resulting Self-Sufficiency Standards4 are basic needs budgets created for all family types in each county. The Standards are minimally adequate for each family type in each place. For example, the food budget contains no restaurant or take-out food, even though Americans spend an average of over 40 percent of their food budget on take-out and restaurant food.5 The Standard also does not allow for retirement savings, education expenses, credit card debt or emergencies. In short, these are “bare-bones, no frills” budgets.

The 2004 Self-Sufficiency Standards for eight different family types in 10 diverse Colorado counties are shown in Table 1. As can be seen, costs vary widely, depend-ing on both family composition and location. Add-ing a single infant to the costs for an adult increases the Standard by 41 percent to 94 percent in these 10 Colorado counties. While costs associated with older children are much less than with younger children (compare the adult with an infant and preschooler in the fifth column with the family with a schoolage

child and a teenager in the sixth column), a second adult does not increase costs significantly (compare the fifth and eighth columns). At the same time, the costs for the same family composition in different geographic regions of the state vary widely, with more expensive counties such as Boulder, Jefferson, Eagle, Larimer and even Denver costing from 8 to almost 100% percent or more (depending on family type) than counties such as Pueblo, Mesa, Rio Blanco, Alamosa or Cheyenne. (See Table 1).

The Federal Poverty Level (FPL) for each family size is shown in the last row of Table 1. The FPLs are con-siderably lower than the Standards for all the family types in all Colorado counties, even the less expen-sive areas. With the added variation by family type and place the Standards vary from 146 percent of the FPL (an adult with a schoolage child and teenager in Alamosa) to 366 percent of the FPL (an adult with an infant, preschooler and schoolage child in Boulder County). The median income for each county—which is the level at which half of all households have more income, and half less—is higher than the Standards for most family types. Not surprisingly, those areas with higher median incomes also generally have higher Standards for income sufficiency.

Table 1 Self-Sufficiency Wages for Selected Colorado Counties

and Federal Poverty Threshold Level, 2004(1)

Median Household

Income

(2)

Adult

(3)

Adult + infant

(4)

Adult + pre-schooler

(5)

Adult + infant

preschooler

(6)

Adult + schoolage teenager

(7)

Adult + infant

preschooler schoolage

(8)

2 Adults + infant

preschooler

(9)

2 Adults + preschooler schoolage

Self-Sufficiency Wages by County

Boulder 81,900 21,110 38,450 40,168 52,919 33,758 68,993 59,273 53,100

Jefferson 69,500 18,774 33,646 34,679 45,408 30,170 59,391 51,292 47,544

Denver 69,500 18,732 33,833 34,918 44,991 31,251 59,702 51,344 48,065

Eagle 76,700 17,610 34,155 31,921 44,723 28,900 58,947 50,467 44,762

Larimer 66,500 17,456 29,982 31,771 41,043 26,465 53,537 47,261 43,637

Pueblo 45,000 15,477 26,243 23,736 33,980 23,545 45,581 40,311 36,965

Alamosa 41,900 14,551 20,517 21,075 27,509 22,908 39,412 34,442 35,463

Cheyenne 49,400 14,410 26,706 20,193 31,935 24,400 46,039 38,625 36,037

Mesa 47,600 15,162 24,749 25,190 33,535 23,955 45,104 39,649 37,951

Rio Blanco 50,900 14,650 23,847 22,905 31,010 25,940 45,620 37,790 38,755

Federal Poverty Level Thresholds

9,310 12,490 12,490 15,670 15,670 18,850 22,030 22,030

Note: All values expressed in U.S. dollars.

Source: “The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Colorado State” by Diana Pearce, Ph.D. with Jennifer Brooks.


3

A. Sample and Methodology

The data used in this study are from the 5 percent Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) sample of the 2000 Census for Colorado. Use of the “5 percent sample” data allows for analysis of a wide range of variables including race/ethnicity, education and income. Since the Self-Sufficiency Standard assumes that adult household members work, the population sample in this report includes only those households in which there is at least one adult aged 18-65 who is not disabled. Although the sample includes house-holds that include both non-disabled/non-elderly members and disabled and/or elderly members, this report excludes those household members who are disabled and/or elderly adults, and their income, when determining household size/composition and total income. For example, if a grandmother who is over 65 lives with her adult children, she is not counted towards the household size or composition, and her income (from social security, earnings, etc.) is not counted as part of household income.

The sample unit is the household, including nonrelatives (such as unmarried partners, foster children,

boarders) and their income. In Colorado, about 88 percent of households with two or more persons are “family” households, i.e., all household members are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. For this reason, we use the term family and household interchangeably. Regardless of household composi-tion, the “best case” scenario is assumed, one in which all members of the household share income and expenses.

To determine the income required to cover each family’s basic needs, Self-Sufficiency Standards have been created to cover all possible household combinations (for a total of 152 family types) for each county or sub-county area in Colorado. The Standard appropriate for each household’s composi-tion and location is compared to its income in order to determine whether a household’s income is above or below the Standard. Household income is also compared to the appropriate family size FPL in order to determine whether households were above or below the federal poverty level.

II. FINDINGSTo see the contrast between the picture of income inadequacy, or poverty, that emerges when one uses the Standard, and the picture provided by the FPL, we present information using both of these measures in this report. Thus, all tables in this report divide Colorado households into three groups whose incomes are:

1) Below the FPL and below the Standard (all families who are below the FPL are below the Standard as well);6

2) Above the FPL but below the Standard, and

3) Above the Standard (which is always also above the FPL).

For convenience, the total number of families below the Standard is also shown in the third column of each table. Note that the terms “below the Standard,” “lacking sufficient (or adequate) income,” and “income that is not sufficient (or adequate) to meet

basic needs” are used interchangeably to refer to households whose incomes are too small to meet their basic needs as measured by the Self-Sufficiency Standard.

Generally, the tables in the text provide just the total population in a given subgroup and the percent of the population who fall into each of the groups described above, as defined by the FPL and the Self-Sufficiency Standard. The corresponding Appendix tables (which are numbered in parallel) provide the raw numbers for each group as well as percents and more detail.

A. The Geographic Distribution of Income Adequacy

Using the FPL, about 7 percent of Colorado house-holds are designated officially as poor. Using the Self-Sufficiency Standard, more than 20 percent, or one in five households, lack sufficient income to meet their basic costs in Colorado (see Table 2).

ALMOST THREE TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE LACK ENOUGH INCOME TO MAKE ENDS MEET AS ARE RECOGNIZED USING THE FEDERAL POVERTY LINE


4

Table 2 County Households by the Self-Sufficiency Standard

and Federal Poverty Level: Colorado 2000 Total Percent of

HouseholdsBelow Self-Sufficiency Standard Above

Self-Sufficiency Standard

Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty

Total Below Standard

Percent of Total

Percent of Total

Percent of Total

Percent of Total

Total Households 1,234,029 100 7 13 20 80

Colorado Counties

Adams 97,869 7.9 5 16 21 79

Alamosa 3,555 0.3 16 17 33 67

Arapahoe 142,870 11.6 5 12 17 83

Archuleta 2,766 0.2 11 14 26 75

Baca 1,073 0.1 16 17 33 67

Bent 1,392 0.1 10 15 25 76

Boulder 91,914 7.4 7 13 20 80

Chaffee 4,135 0.3 9 11 19 81

Cheyenne 518 0.04 10 15 25 76

Clear Creek 3,005 0.2 4 9 13 87

Conejos 1,995 0.2 16 17 33 67

Costilla 870 0.1 16 17 33 67

Crowley 1,280 0.1 10 15 25 76

Custer 892 0.1 9 11 19 81

Delta 7,778 0.6 11 14 26 75

Denver 169,144 13.7 11 15 26 74

Dolores 515 0.04 11 14 26 75

Douglas 54,064 4.4 2 10 12 88

Eagle 13,442 1.1 6 13 19 81

El Paso 146,716 11.9 6 13 19 81

Elbert 4,611 0.4 10 15 25 76

Fremont 11,747 1.0 9 11 19 81

Garfield 13,281 1.1 5 12 18 82

Gilpin 1,533 0.1 4 9 13 87

Grand 4,015 0.3 6 13 19 81

Gunnison 4,503 0.4 6 13 19 81

Hinsdale 255 0.02 6 13 19 81

Huerfano 1,868 0.2 16 17 33 67

Jackson 478 0.04 5 12 18 82

Jefferson 157,657 12.8 4 12 16 84

Kiowa 376 0.03 10 15 25 76

Kit Carson 1,859 0.2 10 15 25 76

La Plata 12,279 1.0 11 14 26 75

Lake 2,521 0.2 6 13 19 81

Larimer 75,793 6.1 7 13 19 81

Las Animas 3,612 0.3 16 17 33 67

Lincoln 1,412 0.1 10 15 25 76

Logan 4,758 0.4 10 15 25 76


5

Table 2 (continued) County Households by the Self-Sufficiency Standard




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty


Percent of Total

Percent of Total

Percent of Total

Percent of Total


Colorado Counties

Mesa 29,131 2.4 8 15 23 77

Mineral 268 0.02 6 13 19 81

Moffat 3,998 0.3 5 12 18 82

Montezuma 6,659 0.5 11 14 26 75

Montrose 9,343 0.8 11 14 26 75

Morgan 6,305 0.5 10 15 25 76

Otero 4,825 0.4 16 17 33 67

Ouray 1,207 0.1 6 13 19 81

Park 3,697 0.3 9 11 19 81

Phillips 1,040 0.1 10 15 25 76

Pitkin 4,799 0.4 6 13 19 81

Prowers 3,361 0.3 10 15 25 76

Pueblo 34,015 2.8 16 17 33 67

Rio Blanco 1,815 0.1 5 12 18 82

Rio Grande 2,949 0.2 16 17 33 67

Routt 5,971 0.5 5 12 18 82

Saguache 1,406 0.1 16 17 33 67

San Juan 156 0.01 11 14 26 75

San Miguel 1,843 0.2 11 14 26 75

Sedgwick 637 0.1 10 15 25 76

Summit 7,598 0.6 6 13 19 81

Teller 5,232 0.4 9 11 19 81

Washington 1,143 0.1 10 15 25 76

Weld 45,999 3.7 11 14 25 75

Yuma 2,283 0.2 10 15 25 76

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 5% Census Data, 2000.

� ��

Figure 1


6

The actual proportion of households with insufficient income varies greatly by county, from a low of 12 percent to a high of 33 percent. While in three of the counties7 around Denver—Gilpin, Clear Creek and Douglas—only about 12-13 percent of the population have incomes below the Standard, in south central and southeast Colorado, the proportion is one in three households (see Figure 2, Map). This group of counties with the highest concentration of households lacking sufficient income includes Alamosa, Baca, Conejos, Costilla, Huerfano, Las Animas, Otero, Pueblo, Rio Grande, and Saguache.

There are two groups of counties in which approxi-mately one out of four households lacks sufficient income. One group is found in the southwestern corner of the state, including Archuleta, Delta, Dolores, La Plata, Mesa, Montezuma, Montrose, San Juan, and San Miguel counties. The second group, in eastern Colorado, includes Bent, Cheyenne, Crowley, Elbert, Kiowa, Kit Carson, Lincoln, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Prowers, Sedgwick, Washington, Weld, Yuma, and Denver counties. However, in contrast to Denver, the

counties around Denver—Boulder, Adams, Arapahoe, Clear Creek, Douglas, Gilpin, and Jefferson—all have proportions that are at or below the statewide average, ranging from 12 percent to 21 percent. The same pattern holds true in the northwest, the Rocky Mountain counties of central Colorado, and immediately south of Denver. In sum, there is a geographic pattern to the concen-tration of income inadequacy: with the exception of Denver itself, income inadequacy is most prevalent in the mostly rural but not mountainous counties of south-western and eastern Colorado.

B. Race/Ethnicity, Geography, and Citizenship

This study finds that, while the majority of families with inadequate income in Colorado are white, people of color are disproportionately likely to have inadequate incomes (Rank and Hirschl, 2001). The rate of income insufficiency in households of color is far higher than the rate in white households. However, because Colorado’s population is 80 percent white, a signifi-cant majority of households with insufficient income

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Note: The map reflects Colorado counties as of the 2000 Census and does not include Broomfield County, created in 2001 and located adjacent to Weld, Adams, Boulder and Jefferson counties.

Figure 2 Percent Below Self-Sufficiency Standard: Colorado 2006


7

is white. Most families that have insufficient income look like the majority of Colorado families; they are white, married, and raising children.

For this study, Colorado families are divided into six mutually exclusive race/ethnic groups: White, (Caucasian, non-Latino), Asian and Pacific Islander (non-Latino), Latino, Black (African American, non-Latino), Native American (including Alaskan Native, non-Latino), and Other (non-Latino).8

White households are the least likely group to experience inadequate income with just over one in six households having incomes below the Standard, as seen in Table 3. The highest percentage of house-holds with insufficient incomes is found among Lati-nos (43 percent), followed by African Americans (34 percent) and Native Americans (33 percent). Among Asian/Pacific Islanders, more than one in four house-holds, or 27 percent, experience inadequate income.

Although Latino households constitute only about 12 percent of all Colorado households, Latinos account for 25 percent of all households with incomes below the Standard. This suggests that the geographical distribution of households with inadequate incomes, described above, may reflect the geographical distribution of Latino households, rather than a more general rural/urban differential. Examining the data by county shows that geographic distribution of Latino households only partially accounts for the geographic variations in households with inadequate income. At the two extremes, the counties with the highest proportions of Latinos (35-37 percent) are the same counties in southeastern Colorado with the highest proportions below the Standard (about one-third; see the map, Figure 2).

Likewise, the counties with the lowest proportions of Latinos (mostly less than 1 percent, up to 9 percent) also generally have the lowest rates of income insuf-ficiency. On the other hand, two-thirds of Latinos in Colorado are found in just six counties, and in these six counties the proportion of households with in-come below the Standard ranges from the lowest to the highest in the state: (The six counties, with their overall proportion below the Standard, are: Denver (20 percent), Adams (19 percent), El Paso

Table 3 Race of Householder by the Self-Sufficiency Standard,

and Federal Poverty Level: Colorado 2000Total Percent of

householdsBelow Self-Sufficiency Standard Above


Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty


Percent of total

Percent of total

Percent of total

Percent of total


Race/Ethnicity

White 991,812 80 5 11 16 84

Asian/Pacific Islander 27,906 2 10 18 27 73

Latino1 149,066 12 17 26 43 57

Black 46,185 4 15 20 34 66

Native American 14,497 1 13 20 33 671 Latinos may be of any race.


Note: The Race/Ethnicity category of “Other” is calculated but not shown separately in this table as the category is too small to be statistically stable.

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


8

(9 percent), Pueblo (37 percent), Arapahoe (9 per-cent), and Weld (19 percent).)

One way of summarizing the intersection of geog-raphy and race/ethnicity is to differentiate between different parts of Colorado. Thus, in southeastern Colorado, not only are rates of income inadequacy higher, and the proportion of Latinos higher, but rates of insufficient income among Latinos in these counties are also higher, averaging about 44 percent. Therefore one can characterize income insufficiency in these areas as being both high, and quite concen-trated among Latinos. Indeed, in these ten counties, about half of all households with insufficient income are Latino. In contrast, in the remainder of Colorado counties, income insufficiency is much less concentrated among Latinos and varies widely, from 5 percent (Gilpin) to 39 percent (Denver).

Higher rates of inadequate income are linked to foreign birth and non-citizenship, particularly for Latinos. For all households in Colorado, the likeli-hood of having inadequate income is significantly higher if the householder is foreign-born (40 percent

versus 19 percent) and even higher if the householder is not a citizen (48 percent). However, these propor-tions mask quite different experiences for those who are Latino versus all other racial/ethnic groups. Only Latinos seem to experience significant differences between native-born and foreign-born citizens, and even native-born Latinos fare worse than non-citizen households from other racial and ethnic groups. For all other ethic and racial groups, there is almost no difference between being a native-born citizen versus a naturalized citizen (17 percent versus 20 percent have incomes below the Standard), although for these groups income inadequacy is higher for non-citizen households (31 percent). However, for Latinos, there is a higher rate of income inadequacy even for native-born householders, with foreign birth and citizenship status further increasing that likelihood. Native-born Latinos, in fact, are more likely to have income below the Standard than non-Latino non-citizens (36 percent compared to 31 percent). Among Latinos who are foreign-born, but naturalized citizens, almost half lack adequate income (47 percent), and for Latinos lacking citizenship, the figure is 61 percent.

Table 4 Citizenship Status and Hispanic Origin of Householder by the Self-Sufficiency Standard,




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty


Percent of total

Percent of total

Percent of total

Percent of total


Citizenship Status

Native 1,135,459 92 7 12 19 81

Hispanic or Latino1 104,357 9 15 22 36 64

Not Hispanic or Latino 1,031,102 84 6 11 17 83

Foreign born 98,570 8 16 25 40 60

Naturalized citizen 37,615 3 9 19 28 72


Not Hispanic or Latino 26,857 2 6 14 20 80

Not a citizen 60,955 5 20 28 48 52


Not Hispanic or Latino 27,004 2 15 17 31 691 Latinos/Hispanics may be of any race.


WHILE FAMILIES WITH INADEQUATE INCOMES LIVE THROUGHOUT

COLORADO, THERE ARE PARTICULARLY HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF SUCH

FAMILIES IN DENVER AND IN THE RURAL COUNTIES OF SOUTHWESTERN

AND EASTERN COLORADO.


9

C. Gender and Family Composition

Households maintained by women are more than one and one-half times more likely to have income below the Standard than households maintained by men (29 percent versus 17 percent). This could be due to one or more of three factors: (1) women have less income (from earnings and other sources) com-pared to men, (2) households maintained by women are more likely to have children with their higher costs, and/or, (3) women-maintained households have fewer workers (Snyder et al, 2006; Brown, 2004).

To determine if this is a “gender” effect, we first compared male versus female non-family households only (which by definition do not include children). As these households are almost all one-person households, they will show an almost “pure” effect of the householder’s gender on income adequacy. We find much less difference in income inadequacy by gender for non-family households—22 percent for female householders versus 18 percent for male householders—than the gender difference for all households, of all types described above. In other words, men and women living alone (and in a few cases, with non-relatives) have similar rates of inad-equate income.

If gender alone does not account for the much higher rates of inadequate income among house-holds maintained by women, then perhaps it is the presence of children. Having children does increase the likelihood of inadequate income, but not as much as one might think: the proportion of households with

inadequate income is 14 percent for those with no children, but only increases to 22 percent with one child and 26 percent for two children. (It increases more dramatically for larger families, but these families account for a very small proportion of households.)9 That is, the presence of children does increase the chances of income inadequacy, as the increased costs of children (childcare, housing, food, health care, etc.) burden all types of families, but by itself it does not account for the gender differences observed above.

Table 5 Sex of Householder1 and Nonfamily Householders by the Self-Sufficiency Standard,




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty


Percent of total

Percent of total

Percent of total

Percent of total


Sex of Householder

Male 855,987 69 5 12 17 83

Female 378,042 31 13 17 29 71

Nonfamily2 Householders 390,250 32 9 10 20 80

Male householder 215,490 18 8 10 18 82

Female householder 174,760 14 11 11 22 781 The householder is the person (or one of the persons) in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented or, if there is no such person, any adult

member, excluding roomers, boarders, or paid employees.

2 A nonfamily household is a person maintaining a household while living alone or with nonrelatives only.


MORE THAN HALF OF SINGLE MOTHERS

LACK INCOME ADEQUATE TO MEET

THEIR BASIC NEEDS.


10

The age of the child or children also makes a difference. As seen in Table 1, the Self-Sufficiency Standard increases significantly with the number of children in a family under age 6 compared to the Standard for families with no children (single adult), or with only older children, in the same county. That is, families with children under age 6 require higher income to cover the cost of full-time childcare for children not yet in school. As Table 6 shows, the proportion of households with inadequate income is nearly twice as high for those with young children (one or more children under age 6) than for those with only schoolage children (39 percent compared to 21 percent). This is due in part to the fact the Self-Sufficiency Standard includes the cost of childcare (although it should be noted that these costs are likely underestimated because they are calculated at the rates set by the state for low-income families receiving childcare subsidies).

This still leaves the question of whether the key factor that increases the risk of inadequate income is gender or the presence of children, as neither factor by itself

explains the large gap. The data suggest that it is being a single mother (a combination of gender and single parenting) that is associated with higher rates of income inadequacy. This can be seen by looking at the interaction of gender with the presence of children (see Table 6). If being a single parent resulted in high levels of income inadequacy regardless of gender, then single parenting would be the most important risk factor. Testing this possibility, we find that male family householders with children have a 35 percent rate of income insufficiency, which is closer to the married couple rate (23 percent) than the female householder rate (54 percent). Single parents have a greater likeli-hood of income inadequacy than married couples, but the effect is much greater for single mothers than single fathers. Some of this difference has to do with demographic differences between these two types of single parents, as single fathers are likely to be older, with older children, and more likely to be divorced, while more single mothers have very young children, are younger themselves, and/or have never been married. However, most of the difference is the differ-ence associated with gender itself — i.e., at the same

Table 6 Number of Children in Household, Age of Youngest Child, and Household Type by the

Self-Sufficiency Standard, and Federal Poverty Level: Colorado 2000Total Percent of



Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty

Total Below

Standard

Percent of total

Percent of total

Percent of total

Percent of total


Age of Youngest Child

Less than 6 yrs 238,276 19 10 29 39 61

6 to 17 yrs 279,189 23 6 15 21 79

Number of Children in Household

0 716,564 58 7 8 14 86

1 or more 517,465 42 8 21 29 71

1 208,378 17 7 16 22 78

2 203,839 17 7 19 26 74

3 76,249 6 12 31 43 57

4 or more 28,999 2 19 47 66 34

Household Type

Family households1 with children

517,465 42 8 21 29 71

Married couple 390,338 32 5 18 23 77

Male householder, no spouse present

36,137 3 9 26 35 65

Female householder, no spouse present

90,990 7 22 32 54 46

1 A family household is a household maintained by a family, defined as a group of two or more persons (one of whom is the householder) residing together and related by birth, marriage, or adoption; family households include any unrelated persons who reside in the household.



11

Table 7 Household Type and Race by the Self-Sufficiency Standard,




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty


Percent of total

Percent of total

Percent of total

Percent of total


Household Type by Race1

Households without children 716,564 58 7 8 14 86

Married couple or male householder,2 no spouse present

522,187 42 5 7 12 89

White (non-Hispanic) 443,637 36 4 6 10 90

Black (non-Hispanic) 14,997 1 9 8 17 83

Asian/Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic)

11,278 1 8 8 16 84


Native American 5,921 0.5 11 12 23 78


194,377 16 10 11 21 79




3,874 0.3 17 19 36 64


Native American 2,611 0 16 14 30 70

Households with children 517,465 42 8 21 29 71


426,475 35 5 19 24 76




11,118 1 8 22 29 71


Native American 4,337 0.4 11 29 40 60


90,990 7 22 32 54 46




1,636 0.1 20 47 67 33


Native American 1,628 0.1 24 33 57 431 The CPS sample is not large enough to produce reliable estimates for American Indians and Alaska Natives, therefore data for this group are not

shown separately.

2 The householder is the person (or one of the persons) in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented or, if there is no such person, any adult member, excluding roomers, boarders, or paid employees.

3 Hispanics/Latinos may be of any race.




12

educational levels and at the same employment levels, women householders consistently have lower incomes than men (which is detailed in Table 8).

One obvious difference that distinguishes married couple households from single parent households of either gender is the number of workers. We will address the impact of having only one worker versus two workers in the employment section below.

D. Gender, Family Composition, and Race/Ethnicity

Because there are relatively few households with a male householder and no spouse present, for the analysis of family composition by race/ethnicity male householders are combined with married couples, with and without children, into four family composi-tion groups as follows:

1) Households without children: married couples and male householders with no spouse present;

2) Households without children: female householder, no spouse present.

3) Households with children: married couples and male householders with no spouse present; and

4) Households with children: female householder, no spouse present;

Within each of these household composition types, we find a similar pattern of income inadequacy by

race/ethnicity. Regardless of household type or the presence of children, White non-Hispanic families consistently have the lowest proportions of house-holds with income below the Standard, Latino families generally have the highest proportion, and the other race/ethnic groups fall between these two. When a household is maintained by a woman alone, the patterns of income inadequacy by race/ethnicity and family composition are magnified (Albeda, 1999). As can be seen in Table 7, the proportion of households without children with income below the Standard ranges from 10 to 23 percent for married couple and male householder households, which is significantly lower than the rates of 19 to 36 percent for female householder households.

In general, the proportion of families without sufficient income is higher for households with children than those without children. There are differences among race/ethnic groups. Among married couples and male householder families with children, 18 percent of White, 34 percent of Black, 29 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander families, 49 percent of Hispanic/Latino, and 40 percent of Native American families have incomes below the Standard. Among women-maintained families with children, the proportions are consistently higher but show a similar pattern by race/ethnicity. The proportions lacking inadequate income in women-maintained families with children range from 45 percent for White, 70 percent for Black, 67 percent for Asian/Pacific Islander, 73 percent for Hispanic/Latino, and 57 percent for Native American families.

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


13

Even though households with children, and those maintained by women alone, tend to have higher proportions with inadequate incomes (compared to households without children and/or households maintained by married couples or male householders alone), the differences by race/ethnicity are quite substantial as well. Indeed, childless Latino married couples and male householder families have a higher proportion below the Standard (23 percent) than White married couple and male householder families with children (18 percent).

E. Depth of Poverty

The proportion of families below the Standard, but above the FPL, is usually about one and one-half to two times the proportion below the FPL. For example, of the 20% of households statewide who are below the Standard, 7% are also below the FPL, and 13% are above the FPL, but below the Standard, as shown at the top of most tables. However, Table 7 shows that among married couple and male householder families with children, only about one-sixth to about a third (depending on race/ethnicity) of those below the Standard are also below the poverty level.

In contrast, a greater proportion of families main-tained by women alone with children are very poor—

that is, have incomes below the FPL as well as below the Standard. Among women-maintained households with children, slightly less than one-third to one-half—depending on the ethnic group—of those below the Standard are also below the poverty level. House-holds headed by women of color have the greatest chance of having not only insufficient income, but income below the FPL as well (see Table 7).

F. Education

Not surprisingly, householders with less education are much more likely to have insufficient income (Rank and Hirschl, 2001). Thus more than half (51 percent) of those with less than a high school education have incomes below the Standard, compared to 27 percent of those with a high school degree or its equivalent, 21 percent of those with some college, and 10 percent of those with a college degree or more (see Table 8).

While increased education reduces income inad-equacy for all race/gender groups, three trends are apparent. First, the differences by gender and race are greatest at the lowest educational levels, and least at the highest educational level; in other words, as education increases, race and gender make less difference. Second, the returns for increased

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

WHILE GENDER AND RACE ARE IMPORTANT, MOST FAMILIES THAT HAVE

INSUFFICIENT INCOME LOOK LIKE THE MAJORITY OF COLORADO FAMILIES;

THEY ARE WHITE, MARRIED, AND RAISING CHILDREN.


14

education are greatest for women of color; income inadequacy falls from 73 percent for those without a high school degree to only 23 percent for those with college or more. Finally, the labor market disadvan-tages experienced by women and people of color are such that these groups need more education to

achieve the same level of economic self-sufficiency as White men: women of color with a bachelor’s degree or more still have higher rates of income inadequacy than White men with just a high school degree (23 percent vs. 19 percent).

Table 8 Educational Attainment of Householder,1 Sex and Race by the




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty


Percent of total

Percent of total

Percent of total

Percent of total


Educational Attainment

Less than high school 104,615 9 22 28 51 49

Male 72,911 6 17 28 45 55

White 31,197 3 11 20 31 69

Non-White 41,714 3 21 35 56 44

Female 31,704 3 36 29 64 36

White 13,018 1 28 25 52 48

Non-White 18,686 2 41 31 73 27

High school diploma 239,197 19 9 18 27 73

Male 167,945 14 6 16 22 78

White 130,776 11 5 14 19 82

Non-White 37,169 3 10 23 33 67

Female 71,252 6 17 24 40 60

White 50,268 4 13 21 35 66

Non-White 20,984 2 26 29 55 45

Some college or Associate’s degree

417,389 34 7 14 21 79

Male 282,022 23 4 12 16 84

White 234,979 19 4 11 14 86

Non-White 47,043 4 6 18 24 76

Female 135,367 11 13 19 32 68

White 107,393 9 12 18 29 71

Non-White 27,974 2 19 26 44 56

Bachelor’s degree or higher

472,828 38 3 7 10 90

Male 333,109 27 2 6 8 92

White 300,014 24 2 6 7 93

Non-White 33,095 3 5 10 15 85

Female 139,719 11 5 8 13 87

White 124,167 10 5 8 12 88

Non-White 15,552 1 9 14 23 781 The householder is the person (or one of the persons) in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented or, if there is no such person, the

householder is any adult member, excluding roomers, boarders, or paid employees.



15

G. Employment and Work Patterns

Number of Workers. While married couples (and to a lesser extent, male householders alone) are less likely to have inadequate income, it may be the number of workers rather than the number of adults in a household that determines economic status. As Table 9 indicates, there is a strong association between the number of workers and the likelihood of an insufficient income. Over two-thirds of the house-holds with no workers (that is, households in which no one has been employed in the past year) lack sufficient incomes. On the other hand, only about one in four families with one worker and one in eight families with two or more workers have incomes that fall below the Standard. Thus employment is by far the best protector against income insufficiency. At the same time, however, even among families with insufficient incomes, 85 percent of households have at least one worker, and only 6 percent receive any public assistance. Only 4 percent of (non-elderly, non-disabled) households in Colorado have no workers in them at all. Thus, the causes of income inadequacy are not primarily lack of work, but must instead be found in employment patterns and occupations (Cauthen and Lu, 2003). Put another way, the mantra of welfare reform, “work first”, no longer is enough: work alone is not the automatic solution to income insufficiency.

If as we have shown, the great majority of families with inadequate income already have at least one adult worker in them, what kinds of employment

patterns result in inadequate income? Is it part-time, inconsistent employment (lack of hours and stability), or low-wage occupations, or just having one adult, or some combination of work-related factors that results in income inadequacy? Below we will examine several of these possible explanations for employment-related causes of income inadequacy.

Employment patterns. Not surprisingly, if the householder works full-time, year-round, the likeli-hood of having inadequate income is relatively low — only about one in nine households with a full-time year-round worker have insufficient income (see Table 10). If the householder works only part-time

Table 9 Number of Working Adults in Household by the Self-Sufficiency Standard,




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty


Percent of total

Percent of total

Percent of total

Percent of total


Number of Working Adults in Household

0 54,060 4 54 14 68 32

1 496,006 40 9 18 27 73

2 or more 683,963 55 2 10 12 88


FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH ONLY ONE ADULT WORKER, THE KEY TO

ADEQUATE INCOME IS FULL TIME WORK; HOUSEHOLDS WITH MORE

THAN ONE ADULT WORKER HAVE MUCH MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE KINDS

OF WORK THEY CAN TAKE AND STILL HAVE ADEQUATE INCOME.


16

or part-year, this changes the picture substantially, with over one-third (35 percent) of these householders lacking sufficient income.

Of course, these differences in household economic status may not be due just to the employment pattern of the householder, but may also reflect the presence of other workers, so next we examine the employment patterns of all adults in the household for the impact on family income sufficiency. Among one-adult house-holds, if the one adult works full-time year round, only about one in eight (13 percent) of these families will lack sufficient income—but if that one worker works only part-time and/or part-year, the proportion rises to

47 percent. Likewise, if there are two (or more)10 adults, with one (or more) working full-time, full year, and one less than full-time, full-year, only about 11 percent will experience insufficient income. If the two-adult household has no full-time, year-round workers, the proportion of households with income below the Stan-dard more than doubles (32 to 53 percent). However, regardless of work schedule, if all adults are working, only about one in ten of these households will lack sufficient income.

Thus there are two quite different employment patterns that substantially reduce income inadequacy: (1) having one adult who works full-time year-round,

Table 10 Work Status of Adults by the Self-Sufficiency Standard,




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty


Percent of Total

Percent of Total

Percent of Total

Percent of Total


Work Status of Householder

Full-time, year-round 833,074 68 1 10 11 89

Part-time and/or part-year 315,511 26 14 21 35 65

Nonworker 85,444 7 40 18 57 43

Work Status of Adults

One adult in household 396,088 32 14 15 29 71

Work full-time, year-round

242,939 20 2 11 13 87

Work part-time and/or part-year

114,461 9 23 24 47 53

Nonworker 38,688 3 58 15 72 28

Two or more adults in household

837,941 68 4 12 17 83

All adults work 644,884 52 2 10 11 89

All workers full-time, year-round

254,383 21 0 3 4 97

Some workers part-time and/or part-year

300,659 24 1 11 12 89

All workers part-time and/or part-year

89,842 7 9 23 32 68

Some adults work 177,661 14 10 23 33 68


111,307 9 4 22 26 74


20,568 2 4 19 23 77


45,786 4 25 28 53 47

No adults work 15,115 1 43 14 58 42



17

and/or (2) having two or more adults, with all of them working regardless of work schedules. These findings are quite striking, suggesting different strategies for single-adult and two-adult households. Having stable year-round, full-time work is key to income adequacy

for single-adult households, while two-adult households have more flexibility in terms of work schedules, as long as both have some employment (see Table 10).

Table 11 Household Type by Work Status of Adults, Marital Status of Householder, Number of Working

Adults by the Self-Sufficiency Standard and Federal Poverty Level: Colorado 2000Total Percent of



Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty


Percent of total

Percent of total

Percent of total

Percent of total


Household Type by Work Status of Adults

Households without children 716,564 58 7 8 14 86

Two or more workers 349,001 28 2 5 6 94

One worker full-time, year-round

222,852 18 1 6 7 93

One worker part-time and/or part-year

103,631 8 18 20 38 62

No working adults 41,080 3 46 15 60 40

Households with children 517,465 42 8 21 29 71

Married couple or male householder

426,475 35 5 19 24 76



86,013 7 5 27 33 68


25,830 2 30 36 66 34



90,990 7 22 32 54 46



34,102 3 8 40 48 52


23,578 2 43 32 76 25


Marital Status of Householder by Number of Working Adults, in Households with Children

Total households with children 517,465 42 8 21 29 71

Married 390,338 32 5 18 23 77


1 working adult 94,330 8 11 30 41 59

2 or more working adults 290,908 24 2 14 16 84

Not Married 127,127 10 18 31 49 51


1 working adult 75,193 6 20 34 54 46

2 or more working adults 44,054 4 4 27 32 68



18

Let us now return to the issues of gender, family composition, and single parenting raised above, adding in employment patterns. About three-fourths of married-couple households and male household-ers with children have two or more workers, and for this group, the proportion with insufficient income is 17 percent, consistent with the pattern suggested above (see Table 11). Nevertheless, where there is just one worker in the married-couple or male house-holder household, even when he/she works full-time year-round, the proportion with insufficient income doubles to 32 percent. For single-mother house-holds, however, even with one adult working full-time year-round, almost half nevertheless lack sufficient income. Thus the “one-adult working full-time year-round” strategy described above is countered by the disadvantages of being female and a single parent in the labor market.

Finally, it is hardly surprising that less than full-time work, year-round, results in substantial economic disadvantage, regardless of family type. When the only worker is part-time and/or part year, two-thirds of married-couple and male-maintained households, and three-fourths of single-mother households lack sufficient income. When there are no workers, 90 percent of married-couple and male householder households, and 94% of single mother households, lack sufficient income. (However, only about 10% of Colorado households with children have only a part-time and/or part-year worker, and only 2% have no workers at all.)

This analysis raises the question of whether marital status or the number of workers affects income adequacy more (Lichter, et al, 2003). In the last section of Table 11, we compare households with children by the marital status of the householder and by the number of workers. The substantial differences are by number of workers, not marital status. Thus if there are no workers in the house-hold, the rate of income insufficiency is 91% for married householder households with children, compared to 94% for not-married householder households with children, almost no difference. For households with one worker, the percentages are 41 percent (married) compared to 54% (not married), and for households with two or more workers, the percentages are 16 percent (married) compared to 32% (not married). (See Table 11). Although married households have generally lower rates of income inadequacy, the differences by number of workers is much greater in determining income adequacy than by marital status.

Occupations. One’s occupation, of course, is a major determinant of earnings. The shift from manufactur-ing to service sector occupations has replaced many higher-paying jobs with lower-paying jobs, many of them either part-time or seasonal, or both. In this section we explore the role of these occupational shifts in explaining income inadequacy. What we will see is that it is the wage levels, more than the occupations held by householders that explain income adequacy patterns.

Table 12a Top Ten Householders Occupations:1 Colorado 2000

All Households Households Below Self-Sufficiency Standard

Rank Occupation Percent Cumulative Percent


Total 100.0 Total 100.0

1 Managers 11.5 11.5 1 Moving 13.0 13.0

2 Office administration 10.1 21.6 2 Office administration 12.0 25.0

3 Operating machine 8.3 29.8 3 Operating machine 9.8 34.9

4 Sales & cashier 7.7 37.5 4 Construction 9.0 43.8

5 Construction 7.3 44.8 5Gaming, personal care & service workers

7.7 51.5

6 Financial specialists 5.8 50.6 6 Sales & cashier 6.2 57.7

7Gaming, personal care & service workers

5.7 56.3 7 Food industry 5.9 63.6

8 Moving 5.6 61.9 8 Managers 5.4 69.0

9 Math / computer 4.5 66.4 9 Maintenance / repair 3.8 72.8

10 Maintenance / repair 4.3 70.7 10 Policing / guards 3.8 76.51 The householder is the person (or one of the persons) in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented or, if there is no such person,

the householder is any adult member, excluding roomers, boarders, or paid employees.



19

To analyze the relationship between occupations and income adequacy, we compared the top ten occupations11 (in terms of number of workers) held by all householders to the top ten occupations of those householders with family incomes below the Standard. This comparison reveals a surprising pattern: eight of the top ten occupations among all householders (accounting for 60 percent of all householders) are among the top ten occupations of householders with inadequate family incomes. (See Table 12a). These occupational categories include: managers, office administrators, machine operators, sales workers and cashiers, construction workers, gaming, personal care and service workers, mov-ing workers, and maintenance/repair workers. The two occupations held by householders with below Standard incomes that are not among the top ten for all householders—food industry workers and policing and guards—tend to be low-wage jobs. Two occupations among the top ten for all householders, but not for those with insufficient incomes—financial specialists and math/computer workers—are gener-ally higher-wage jobs. Nonetheless, eight of these occupational categories are shared by both groups, suggesting that within the broad occupational categories, specific jobs have very different wages, wage structures, and work patterns.

Because there are strong differences by gender and race/ethnicity in rates of income adequacy, as de-scribed above, it might be expected that occupational segregation by gender and race/ethnicity might explain some of these within-occupation differentials in income adequacy (Amott and Matthaei, 1991). Yet again there is much more overlap than difference in occupational distribution by gender and race/ethnic-ity. As seen in Table 12b, seven of the ten top occu-pations for male householders with incomes below the Standard are also among the top ten for women householders. There is even greater overlap by race/ethnicity: every one of the top ten occupations of White householders with incomes below the Standard is shared with at least seven of the top ten occupa-tions among each of the other race/ethnic groups.

Those occupations that are not shared are somewhat surprising. For all race/ethnic groups except Whites, policing and guards is among the top ten occupa-tions among households with insufficient income. Less surprising is that farming/fishing is among the top ten occupations only for Latinos, and medical makes the top ten only for African American house-holds of insufficient income. Asian/Pacific Islander householders with insufficient income are alone in having “financial specialists” and “law and judicial”

Table 12b Top Ten Occupations of Householders Below

the Self-Sufficiency Standard, by Sex: Colorado 2000Male Householders Female Householders




1 Construction 15.3 15.3 1 Office administration 20.3 20.3

2 Operating machine 13.4 28.7 2 Moving 14.5 34.8

3 Moving 11.8 40.5 3Gaming, personal care & service workers

11.3 46.1

4 Managers 6.8 47.3 4 Food industry 9.7 55.8

5 Maintenance / repair 6.2 53.5 5 Sales & cashier 7.0 62.8

6 Office administration 5.5 59.0 6 Medical 5.5 68.4

7 Sales & cashier 5.5 64.5 7 Operating machine 5.4 73.7


4.8 69.3 8 Teachers 4.6 78.4

9 Housekeeping / janitor 4.7 74.0 9 Managers 3.6 82.0

10 Policing / guards 4.3 78.3 10 Policing / guards 3.0 85.0


THE PROBLEM IS NEITHER THAT HOUSEHOLDS WITH INADEQUATE

INCOME ARE WORKING IN THE WRONG OCCUPATIONS, NOR THAT THEY

ARE WORKING TOO FEW HOURS, BUT RATHER THAT THEIR WAGE RATES

ARE TOO LOW IN THEIR CURRENT JOBS.


20

among their top ten, two occupational categories seldom associated with low wages.

This overlap in occupations between the overall population and those with the lowest incomes is important, because it means that householders with

inadequate wages are not in an occupational ghetto, as was the case for black women workers in the mid 20th century when race and gender discrimination often confined them to a few jobs in the low-wage job sector (such as housekeeping). Rather, the expla-nation is more subtle: either the jobs are the same

Table 12c Top Ten Occupations of Householders Below

the Self-Sufficiency Standard, by Race/Ethnicity: Colorado 2000White Householders Latino Householders




1 Office administration 12.1 12.1 1 Moving 17.1 17.1

2 Moving 10.7 22.7 2 Construction 14.4 31.5


8.4 31.1 3 Operating machine 13.4 44.9

4 Operating machine 8.2 39.3 4 Office administration 10.3 55.2

5 Construction 7.6 47.0 5 Food industry 6.7 61.9

6 Sales & cashier 7.4 54.4 6 Housekeeping / janitor 5.9 67.8

7 Managers 7.0 61.4 7Gaming, personal care & service workers

5.9 73.7

8 Food industry 5.8 67.3 8 Policing / guards 4.1 77.9

9 Maintenance / repair 3.8 71.1 9 Maintenance / repair 4.1 81.9

10 Teachers 3.5 74.7 10 Farming / fishing 3.9 85.9

Black Householders Asian / Pacific Islander Householders




1 Office administration 19.8 19.8 1 Operating machine 14.9 14.9

2 Moving 17.0 36.8 2 Moving 11.8 26.7

3 Operating machine 10.0 46.9 3 Office administration 9.6 36.2


8.6 55.4 4 Sales & cashier 7.5 43.7

5 Medical 6.7 62.2 5Gaming, personal care & service workers

7.1 50.8

6 Policing / guards 5.1 67.3 6 Food industry 6.0 56.9

7 Sales and cashier 4.8 72.1 7 Financial specialists 4.8 61.6

8 Food industry 4.1 76.3 8 Policing / guards 4.6 66.3

9 Construction 3.4 79.7 9 Law & judicial 4.0 70.3

10 Teachers 3.1 82.8 10 Teachers 3.8 74.1

Native American Householders




1 Moving 20.5 20.5 6 Maintenance / repair 6.0 65.6

2 Office administration 11.3 31.8 7 Sales & cashier 5.6 71.1

3 Construction 10.9 42.7 8 Food industry 4.0 75.1

4 Operating machine 9.1 51.8 9 Policing / guards 3.9 79.0


7.7 59.6 10 Managers 3.5 82.5



21

but the work patterns (part-time versus full-time, seasonal versus year-round) differ, resulting in less work hours and therefore reduced wages; or the specific occupations or even specific jobs within these broad categories held by these two groups are quite different in terms of their wages. The explanation might also be some combination of these two factors, work patterns and wages.

Earnings Versus Hours. The findings above related to work patterns suggest that having full-time and year-round work is an important protection against income inadequacy. Our findings indicate that while this is true, the difference in income adequacy between households with full-time and part-time workers is the hourly wage associated with full-time work, more than the increased income from the additional hours worked. Households with incomes above and below the Standard have only a slight difference in work hours, with those above the Standard working about 20 percent more hours (2127 hours versus 1780 hours per year). However, wage rate differences are substantially greater: the hourly wages of those above the Standard are more than twice those of householders below the Standard ($22.50 per hour versus $9.77 per hour). Put another way, this means that if householders with incomes below the Standard increased their work hours to the level of those with

incomes above the Standard, working about 20 percent more hours, but at the same wage rate, they would only close about 13 percent of the wage gap; earning the higher wage rage, with no change in hours worked, would close 87 percent of the gap.

The wage gap is even more pronounced within occu-pational categories; for example, householders with incomes above the Standard working as managers have wages that are nearly three times as much as the wages of householders who are managers whose incomes are below the Standard ($30.51 per hour versus $10.63 per hour).

This data suggests that addressing income adequacy through employment solutions would have a greater impact if it were focused on wage rates rather than hours or occupations. There is almost no occupational shift at the broad categorical level examined here that would gain significantly higher wages for most. Likewise, increasing work hours to match that of above-the-Standard householders would only make a small dent in the income gap. Put another way, for many householders with inadequate income, the problem is neither that they are working in the wrong occupations, nor that they are working too few hours, but rather that their wage rates are too low in their current jobs.

The odds of experiencing inadequate income are clearly concentrated among certain families by gen-der, race/ethnicity, education, and location. Never-theless, overall, families with inadequate incomes in Colorado are remarkably diverse.

• Although Latinos generally have the highest rates of income inadequacy, six out of ten households in Colorado with inadequate income are White, while about 25 percent are Latino, 3 percent are Asian/Pacific Islander, 6 percent are African American, and 2 percent are Native American.

• Nearly nine out of ten households below the Self-Sufficiency Standard are headed by U.S. citizens.

• Three out of five or 60 percent of households below the Standard have children, with about 62 percent of these with one or more children under age 6.

• Married-couples with children head 44 percent of households with inadequate income, and only one

III. A PROFILE OF FAMILIES WITH INADEQUATE INCOME

in sixteen households with inadequate income is maintained by a never-married mother with children.

• Among householders in families with inadequate income, only one in five has less than a high school degree, and about 26 percent have a high school degree. The remaining householders lacking ad-equate income have at least some college.

• 85 percent of Colorado households with inad-equate income have at least one worker, and in about half of these, there is at least one full-time year-round worker.

• Only 6 percent of households with inadequate income receive public cash assistance.

• About 40 percent of households with inadequate income own their own homes, while almost all of the rest are renters.


22

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

The Self-Sufficiency Standard provides a very different analysis of poverty and/or income inadequacy than the official Federal Poverty Level. Those lacking adequate income under the Standard in Colorado are both greater in number and are remarkably diverse in terms of race/ethnicity, family composition, and educational level.

The data show that there are more than one in five households in Colorado that experience inadequate income. While lack of adequate income is found disproportionately among some groups, such as people of color, families maintained by women alone, and families with young children, income inadequacy is experienced throughout Colorado, and among all types of households. Indeed, the most common household lacking sufficient income to meet their needs is White, maintained by a married couple with children, and has at least one worker with a high school education or more.

The breadth and diversity of this problem suggests that income inadequacy is a broad-based, structural problem, rather than one confined to a few distinct individuals or overly concentrated in groups defined by certain, even stereotypical, characteristics. If those

who lack adequate income look a lot like everyone else, this suggests looking for solutions at the societal or structural level, rather than trying to merely change individuals. For example, this data shows that most people below the Standard, as with most people above the Standard, are already working, and working quite a bit. Those lacking sufficient income are not sub-stantially different in their characteristics or behavior from those with sufficient income, except that their incomes are substantially lower.

Second, these findings indicate that moving people into the workforce does not by itself solve poverty. The findings show how quickly and completely the nature of poverty has changed over the last ten years, or at least, how it must be recognized as having changed. A decade ago, in the years leading up to welfare reform, there was a narrow focus on moving those receiving welfare into the paid workforce, on the assumption that such a strategy would go a long way to solving the problem of poverty. The analysis in this report, however, suggests that moving people into employment, as it is now structured, cannot by itself eliminate income inadequacy. Indeed, if every household with no working adult were to suddenly acquire one, that would only affect about 15 percent


23

of Colorado households with incomes below the Standard. Among the 85 percent of households with at least one worker, a substantial number are already working full-time year-round. Few of those workers are in the “wrong” occupations, with some notable exceptions (such as farm workers), so that chang-ing occupations would not greatly impact income inadequacy. In sum, these data show that families are not poor because they lack workers, or because adults are working in the wrong occupations, but because wages have become inadequate to meet basic expenses.

Third, the findings show that most households with incomes below the Standard have incomes above the FPL. An important implication is that many households with incomes below the Standard live in a “policy gap”, and get no help meeting their basic needs. In spite of all efforts, many householders are unable to earn enough to meet the rising costs of living basics, yet they earn too much to qualify for most “safety net” programs. Whether at the individual level (such as Food Stamps), or at the community level (such as Community Development Block Grants), many such programs are pegged to the Federal Poverty Level, a multiple of the Federal Poverty Level, or other equivalent measures. It is not surprising that only 6 percent of the households with incomes below the Standard (and almost all of these are below the FPL as well) receive public assistance. Even with higher eligibility levels for such programs as childcare (for which families can be eligible with incomes up to 225 percent of the federal poverty level), only 10-15 percent of eligible families receive assistance, and in some counties, many are excluded by lower eligibility levels. As such, most households with inadequate incomes fall in a policy gap, with not enough income to meet all their needs at even a basic level, but with too much income to qualify for public safety net programs.

Fourth, the methodology used to construct the Standard helps point to the areas where families most need help. Unlike the federal poverty measure, which is based only on a food budget (multiplied by three), the Self-Sufficiency Standard is based on the costs of all

major family budget items. The Self-Sufficiency Standard indicates that housing and childcare are two of the largest budget items and, therefore, are often the primary sources of much of the economic stress faced by families with inadequate incomes.

The frugal nature of the Self-Sufficiency budgets are such that one may assume that the great majority of households, who lack sufficient income but receive no public aid, are either resorting to private subsidy strategies (such as doubling up to reduce housing costs, going to food pantries to stretch food budgets or using informal/inexpensive childcare), are fortunate enough to find alternative solutions (for example, acquiring sufficient but unusually inexpensive housing), or are doing without. The Standard suggests that people make the most serious compromises to make ends meet particularly with the “big ticket” items. That is, families who get no public or private aid will be unable to afford adequate childcare or will use credit cards to avoid utility cutoffs or pay for food in order to have rent money. The increasing levels of consumer debt and bankruptcy may be one outcome of this widening gap between wages and the costs of basic needs such as food, shelter, childcare and health care.

Finally, it should be noted that these conclusions do not necessarily mean that nothing can be done to solve income inadequacy. By and large, those households with inadequate income are part of the mainstream workforce. They are not locked out of self-sufficiency by geographic isolation, lack of edu-cation, or lack of work experience or participation in employment. At the same time, a broad-based policy effort is required to secure adequate wages, benefits, and public supports (such as childcare) to both decrease costs and increase income for a large portion of Colorado’s families. This report is meant to provide a contribution to the first critical step towards establishing economic self-sufficiency by identifying the extent and nature of the causes of income inadequacy. The challenge now before Colorado is how to make it possible for all households in the state to earn enough money and receive enough supports to meet their basic needs.


24

ENDNOTES1 U.S. Census Bureau; “Historical Poverty Tables-

Table 2. Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2004”. December 2005. Available from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/ hstpov2.html

2 Dalaker, Poverty in the United States: 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P60-214), U.S. Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C., 2001).

3 The Self-Sufficiency Standard was developed in the mid-1990s by Diana Pearce as an alternative “per-formance standard” in the workforce development system, then called the JTPA (Job Training Partner-ship Act) Program, to measure more accurately and specifically what it would take to meet the JTPA goal of “self-sufficiency” for each individual participant. It also benefited from other attempts at creating alternatives, such as Living Wage cam-paigns, the National Academy of Sciences studies, and others as well, such as Trudi Renwick. See Trudi Renwick and Barbara Bergmann, “A Budget-based Definition of Poverty: With an Application to Single-parent Families,” The Journal of Human Resources, 28(1), p. 1-24 (1993). For a more detailed discussion of the background and method-ology of the Self-Sufficiency Standard, see a state report, available at http://www.sixstrategies.org.

4 To-date Self-Sufficiency Standards have been created for 35 states, plus Washington D.C. and New York City.

5 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey (2000 Table 4: Size of consumer unit: Average annual expenditures and characteristics). Available from http://www.bls.gov/cex/2000/Standard/cusize.pdf.

6 Because the FPL is so low, in all instances the FPL for a given household is lower than the Standard, even in the least expensive places.

7 Note that Broomfield County, formed in 2001 from parts of Adams, Boulder, Jefferson and Weld counties, is not included in this study since 2000 Census data was not available.

8 In the Census questionnaires, individuals were asked whether or not they identified as Latino and then asked to identify their race/races (they could indicate more than one race). Those who indicated they were Latino (either alone or in addition to other race categories) were coded as Hispanic/ Latino, regardless of race (Latinos may be of any race). Non-Latino individuals who identified as Black (alone or in addition to other race categories) were coded as Black. Non-Latino, non-Black individuals who identified as Asian or Hawaii/Pacific Islanders (alone or in addition to other race categories) were coded as API (Asian/Pacific Islander). Those non-Latino, non-Black and non-API individuals who identified as “Other” (either alone or in addition to other race categories) were coded as “Other”. All other non-Latino, non-Black, non-API and non-“Other” individuals were coded as White. Tables were created with the mutually exclusive categories, then were again run for everyone indicating more than one racial category. The results were virtually identical, so only the mutually exclusive race/ethnic categories are reported here.

9 Although the proportion of households with inadequate income rises substantially for larger numbers of children (43 percent for those with three children, and 66 percent for those with four or more children), less than 9 percent of all Colorado households have three or more children. See Table 6.

10 We have grouped together all households with two or more adults together, because there are relatively few households with three or more adults.

11 Occupations were grouped into 27 occupational categories, using the Census 2000 coding scheme for occupations. Note that occupations are different from industries; thus the manufacturing industry (or sector) includes many occupations, from machinist to manager.


25

REFERENCESAlbeda, Randy. 1999. Women and Poverty: Beyond earnings and welfare. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 39 (5); 723-742.

Amott, Teresa L. and Julie A. Matthaei. 1991. Race, Gender & Work. Boston: South End Press.

Brown, S.L.2004. Family Structure and Child Well-Being: the Significance of Parental Cohabitation. Journal of Marriage and Family 66:351-67.

Cauthen, Nancy K. and Hsien-Hen Lu. 2003. Living at the Edge, Research Brief 1: Employment Alone Is Not Enough for America’s Low-Income Families. New York City: Columbia University, National Center for

Children in Poverty.

Lichter, D.T. Graefe, D.R., and Brown, J.B. 2003. Is Marriage a Panacea? Union formation among economically disadvantaged unwed mothers. Social Problems 50 (1) February: 60-86.

Citro, C. & Michael, R. Eds. 1995. Measuring poverty: A new approach. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

Rank, Mark and Hirschl T.A. 2001. Rags or riches? Estimating the probabilities of poverty and affluence across the adult American life span. Social Science Quarterly. 82 (4): 651-669 (Dec).

Bergmann, B. & Renwick, T. 1993. A budget-based definition of poverty: With an application to single-parent families. The Journal of Human Resources, 28 (1), 1-24.

Reskin, Barbara and Irene Padavic. 1994. Women and Men at Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Ruggles, Patricia. 1990. Drawing the Line: Alternative Poverty Measures and their Implications for Public Policy, The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.

Snyder, Anastasia R., Diane K. McLaughlin, Jill Findeis. 2006. Household Composition and Poverty among Female-Headed Households with Children: Differences by Race and Residence. Rural Sociology 71:4,

p. 597-624.


26

Data This study uses data from the 2000 Census, specifi-cally the 5 percent sample of people and housing units. These are grouped into geographic units known as PUMAs, or Public Use Microsample Areas; Super PUMAs contain a minimum population of 400,000 and each PUMA contains a minimum population threshold of 100,000. Geographic equivalency files that show the relationship between the PUMA and standard Census 2000 geographic concepts (e.g., counties, etc.) were used to code the individual records with the appropriate Standards (Reference: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/PUMS5.html).

The sample unit for this study is the household, including non-relatives (such as unmarried partners, foster children, boarders) and their income. Individuals were therefore grouped into households. In Colorado, about 89 percent of households of two or more persons are “family” households, i.e., all household members are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. For this reason, we use the term family and household inter-changeably. Regardless of household composition, it is assumed that all members of the household share income and expenses.

The 2001 Colorado Self-Sufficiency Standard (SSS) is used for comparison purposes as it is the closest available year to that of the Census data. The 2001 Self-Sufficiency Standard numbers were deflated to 2000 levels using a deflation factor calculated from the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index (CPI) for All Urban Consumer Items, June 1999 (the closest date to the Census reference date for income) and August 2001 (the closest date to the SSS release date). The appropriate regional CPI (West) for Colorado was obtained and the June 1999 CPI (168.3) was divided by the August 2001 CPI (181.9) for a deflation factor of .925. (Reference: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/).

The Census data is broken down by PUMAs and the SSS is broken down by counties and sub-regions relative to Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). The county/sub-area specific SSS could not be applied directly to 16 of the 38 Colorado PUMAs because there are multiple counties in each of those PUMAs. As a result, for those PUMAs consisting of multiple counties, each county was weighted by population and a weighted average of the SSS for those counties was calculated to determine the SSS specific to that PUMA. The unweighted SSS was applied to those PUMAs consisting of only one county or sub-area.

Since the SSS assumes that adult household members work, the population sample in this report includes only those households in which there is at least one adult aged 18-65 who is not disabled. Although the sample includes households, which have both disabled and/or elderly members and non-disabled/non-elderly adults, this report excludes disabled/elderly adults and their income when determining household composition. We also do not include group quarters in our analysis. Based on the characteristics described here, there are 1,234,029 total (non-disabled, non-elderly) households included in this demographic study of Colorado.

The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Colorado had previ-ously been calculated for 70 different family types in each county, including combinations of up to two adults and three children. To account for additional family types in the 5 percent PUMA US Census sample (3 or more adults and/or 4 or more children), we include an additional 82 family types for a total of 152. We developed new Standards for each of these “large households,” but made some assumptions to limit the number of necessary calculations.

Assumptions for the Expanded Family Types

Two and Three or More Adult Families In order to remain consistent with the Standard’s methodology, we assume that all adults in one- and two-adult households are working. In Colorado, 81 percent of households with one or more adults have all adults working, 14 percent have at least one but not all adults working, and 4 percent contain no working adults. (Working adults are those who are employed at work or employed but absent from work during the week preceding the survey, as well as people in the Armed Forces. Non-working adults include those who are unemployed and looking for work and those who are not in the labor force because they are retired, in school, or for some other reason.) Therefore, work-related costs (transportation, taxes, and childcare) are included for these adults in the household’s Standard.

Other assumptions include: • For households with more than two adults, it is

assumed that all adults beyond two are non-working dependents of the first two working adults. The main effect of this assumption is that costs for these adults do not include transportation.

• As in the original Standard calculations, it is assumed that adults and children do not share the same

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS


27

bedroom and that there are no more than two children per bedroom. When there are three or more adults in a household, it is assumed that there are no more than two adults per bedroom.

• Food costs for additional adults (greater than two) are calculated using the assumption that the third adult is a female and the fourth adult is a male, with the applicable food costs added for each.

• The additional adults are treated as adults for tax exemptions and credits, but the first two adults are assumed to be a married couple and taxes are calculated for the whole household together (i.e., as a family).

• For the additional children in the two- and three-adult families, the added costs of food, health care, and childcare are based on the ages of the “extra” children and added to the total expenses of the household (before taxes and tax credits are calculated).

Self-Sufficiency Standard The total income of each person in the household (excluding seniors and disabled adults’ income) is summed to determine the household’s total income.

Income includes money received during the preceding year (1999) by non-disabled/non-elderly adult house-hold members (or children) from wages; net income from farm and non-farm self-employment; Social Security or railroad payments; interest on savings or bonds; dividends, income from estates or trusts, and net rental income; veterans’ payments or unemploy-ment and workmen’s compensations; private pensions or government employee pensions; alimony and child support; regular contributions from people not living in the household; and other periodic income. We assume that all income in a household is equally available to pay all expenses. A ratio of each household’s total income to the applicable Standard is calculated to determine the level of income adequacy.

We also calculated a ratio of each household’s total income to the appropriate 2000 poverty threshold published by the U.S. Census Bureau. Although these thresholds are based on family size and number of related children, we use household size and the number of all children in the household to determine the appropriate poverty threshold for each house-hold. Households whose total income falls below their threshold are considered “below poverty.”

Table 1 Self-Sufficiency Wages for Selected Colorado Counties

and Federal Poverty Threshold Level, 2004(1)

Median Household

Income

(2)

Adult

(3)

Adult + infant

(4)

Adult + pre-schooler

(5)

Adult + infant

preschooler

(6)

Adult + schoolage teenager

(7)

Adult + infant

preschooler schoolage

(8)

2 Adults + infant

preschooler

(9)

2 Adults + preschooler schoolage

Self-Sufficiency Wages by County

Boulder 81,900 21,110 38,450 40,168 52,919 33,758 68,993 59,273 53,100

Jefferson 69,500 18,774 33,646 34,679 45,408 30,170 59,391 51,292 47,544

Denver 69,500 18,732 33,833 34,918 44,991 31,251 59,702 51,344 48,065

Eagle 76,700 17,610 34,155 31,921 44,723 28,900 58,947 50,467 44,762

Larimer 66,500 17,456 29,982 31,771 41,043 26,465 53,537 47,261 43,637

Pueblo 45,000 15,477 26,243 23,736 33,980 23,545 45,581 40,311 36,965

Alamosa 41,900 14,551 20,517 21,075 27,509 22,908 39,412 34,442 35,463

Cheyenne 49,400 14,410 26,706 20,193 31,935 24,400 46,039 38,625 36,037

Mesa 47,600 15,162 24,749 25,190 33,535 23,955 45,104 39,649 37,951

Rio Blanco 50,900 14,650 23,847 22,905 31,010 25,940 45,620 37,790 38,755

Federal Poverty Level Thresholds

9,310 12,490 12,490 15,670 15,670 18,850 22,030 22,030

Note: All values expressed in U.S. dollars.

Source: “The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Colorado State” by Diana Pearce, Ph.D. with Jennifer Brooks.


28

Table 2 County Households by the Self-Sufficiency Standard




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty


Number Percent of Total




Total Households 1,234,029 100% 88,858 7.2% 163,992 13.3% 252,850 20.5% 981,179 79.5%

Colorado Counties

Adams 97,869 7.9% 5,352 5.5% 15,067 15.4% 20,419 20.9% 77,450 79.1%

Alamosa 3,555 0.3% 583 16.4% 597 16.8% 1,179 33.2% 2,376 66.8%

Arapahoe 142,870 11.6% 6,513 4.6% 17,307 12.1% 23,820 16.7% 119,050 83.3%

Archuleta 2,766 0.2% 306 11.1% 399 14.4% 705 25.5% 2,061 74.5%

Baca 1,073 0.1% 176 16.4% 180 16.8% 356 33.2% 717 66.8%

Bent 1,392 0.1% 137 9.9% 204 14.7% 341 24.5% 1,050 75.5%

Boulder 91,914 7.4% 6,692 7.3% 11,587 12.6% 18,279 19.9% 73,635 80.1%

Chaffee 4,135 0.3% 372 9.0% 432 10.5% 804 19.4% 3,331 80.6%

Cheyenne 518 0.04% 51 9.9% 76 14.7% 127 24.5% 391 75.5%

Clear Creek 3,005 0.2% 122 4.1% 259 8.6% 381 12.7% 2,624 87.3%

Conejos 1,995 0.2% 327 16.4% 335 16.8% 662 33.2% 1,334 66.8%

Costilla 870 0.1% 143 16.4% 146 16.8% 289 33.2% 582 66.8%

Crowley 1,280 0.1% 126 9.9% 188 14.7% 314 24.5% 966 75.5%

Custer 892 0.1% 80 9.0% 93 10.5% 173 19.4% 718 80.6%

Delta 7,778 0.6% 860 11.1% 1,122 14.4% 1,981 25.5% 5,797 74.5%

Denver 169,144 13.7% 17,948 10.6% 25,750 15.2% 43,698 25.8% 125,446 74.2%

Dolores 515 0.04% 57 11.1% 74 14.4% 131 25.5% 384 74.5%

Douglas 54,064 4.4% 1,107 2.1% 5,548 10.3% 6,655 12.3% 47,409 87.7%

Eagle 13,442 1.1% 823 6.1% 1,718 12.8% 2,541 18.9% 10,902 81.1%

El Paso 146,716 11.9% 9,200 6.3% 18,629 12.7% 27,829 19.0% 118,887 81.0%

Elbert 4,611 0.4% 455 9.9% 676 14.7% 1,131 24.5% 3,480 75.5%

Fremont 11,747 1.0% 1,056 9.0% 1,228 10.5% 2,284 19.4% 9,463 80.6%

Garfield 13,281 1.1% 721 5.4% 1,645 12.4% 2,366 17.8% 10,915 82.2%

Gilpin 1,533 0.1% 62 4.1% 132 8.6% 194 12.7% 1,339 87.3%

Grand 4,015 0.3% 246 6.1% 513 12.8% 759 18.9% 3,256 81.1%

Gunnison 4,503 0.4% 276 6.1% 575 12.8% 851 18.9% 3,652 81.1%

Hinsdale 255 0.02% 16 6.1% 33 12.8% 48 18.9% 207 81.1%

Huerfano 1,868 0.2% 306 16.4% 313 16.8% 620 33.2% 1,248 66.8%

Jackson 478 0.04% 26 5.4% 59 12.4% 85 17.8% 393 82.2%

Jefferson 157,657 12.8% 6,548 4.2% 18,721 11.9% 25,269 16.0% 132,388 84.0%

Kiowa 376 0.03% 37 9.9% 55 14.7% 92 24.5% 284 75.5%

Kit Carson 1,859 0.2% 183 9.9% 273 14.7% 456 24.5% 1,403 75.5%

La Plata 12,279 1.0% 1,357 11.1% 1,771 14.4% 3,128 25.5% 9,151 74.5%

Lake 2,521 0.2% 154 6.1% 322 12.8% 476 18.9% 2,044 81.1%


29

Table 2 (continued) County Households by the Self-Sufficiency Standard




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty







Colorado Counties

Larimer 75,793 6.1% 5,169 6.8% 9,444 12.5% 14,613 19.3% 61,181 80.7%

Las Animas 3,612 0.3% 592 16.4% 606 16.8% 1,198 33.2% 2,414 66.8%

Lincoln 1,412 0.1% 139 9.9% 207 14.7% 346 24.5% 1,066 75.5%

Logan 4,758 0.4% 469 9.9% 698 14.7% 1,167 24.5% 3,591 75.5%

Mesa 29,131 2.4% 2,446 8.4% 4,304 14.8% 6,750 23.2% 22,381 76.8%

Mineral 268 0.02% 16 6.1% 34 12.8% 51 18.9% 218 81.1%

Moffat 3,998 0.3% 217 5.4% 495 12.4% 712 17.8% 3,286 82.2%

Montezuma 6,659 0.5% 736 11.1% 960 14.4% 1,696 25.5% 4,963 74.5%

Montrose 9,343 0.8% 1,033 11.1% 1,347 14.4% 2,380 25.5% 6,963 74.5%

Morgan 6,305 0.5% 622 9.9% 925 14.7% 1,546 24.5% 4,758 75.5%

Otero 4,825 0.4% 791 16.4% 810 16.8% 1,600 33.2% 3,224 66.8%

Ouray 1,207 0.1% 74 6.1% 154 12.8% 228 18.9% 979 81.1%

Park 3,697 0.3% 332 9.0% 386 10.5% 719 19.4% 2,978 80.6%

Phillips 1,040 0.1% 103 9.9% 152 14.7% 255 24.5% 785 75.5%

Pitkin 4,799 0.4% 294 6.1% 613 12.8% 907 18.9% 3,892 81.1%

Prowers 3,361 0.3% 331 9.9% 493 14.7% 824 24.5% 2,536 75.5%

Pueblo 34,015 2.8% 5,291 15.6% 5,881 17.3% 11,172 32.8% 22,844 67.2%

Rio Blanco 1,815 0.1% 99 5.4% 225 12.4% 323 17.8% 1,492 82.2%

Rio Grande 2,949 0.2% 483 16.4% 495 16.8% 978 33.2% 1,971 66.8%

Routt 5,971 0.5% 324 5.4% 740 12.4% 1,064 17.8% 4,908 82.2%

Saguache 1,406 0.1% 230 16.4% 236 16.8% 466 33.2% 939 66.8%

San Juan 156 0.01% 17 11.1% 23 14.4% 40 25.5% 116 74.5%

San Miguel 1,843 0.2% 204 11.1% 266 14.4% 469 25.5% 1,373 74.5%

Sedgwick 637 0.1% 63 9.9% 94 14.7% 156 24.5% 481 75.5%

Summit 7,598 0.6% 465 6.1% 971 12.8% 1,436 18.9% 6,162 81.1%

Teller 5,232 0.4% 471 9.0% 547 10.5% 1,017 19.4% 4,215 80.6%

Washington 1,143 0.1% 113 9.9% 168 14.7% 280 24.5% 863 75.5%

Weld 45,999 3.7% 5,093 11.1% 6,360 13.8% 11,453 24.9% 34,546 75.1%

Yuma 2,283 0.2% 225 9.9% 335 14.7% 560 24.5% 1,723 75.5%



30

Table 3 Race of Householder by the Self-Sufficiency Standard,




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty






Total Households 1,234,029 100.0% 88,858 7.2% 163,992 13.3% 252,850 20.5% 981,179 79.5%

Race/Ethnicity

White 991,812 80.4% 52,185 5.3% 107,671 10.9% 159,856 16.1% 831,956 83.9%

Asian/Pacific Islander 27,906 2.3% 2,677 9.6% 4,874 17.5% 7,551 27.1% 20,355 72.9%

Latino1 149,066 12.1% 24,748 16.6% 38,909 26.1% 63,657 42.7% 85,409 57.3%

Black 46,185 3.7% 6,716 14.5% 9,095 19.7% 15,811 34.2% 30,374 65.8%

Native American 14,497 1.2% 1,895 13.1% 2,869 19.8% 4,764 32.9% 9,733 67.1%1 Latinos may be of any race.



Table 4 Citizenship Status and Hispanic Origin of Householder by the Self-Sufficiency Standard,




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty







Citizenship Status

Native 1,135,459 92.0% 73,548 6.5% 139,659 12.3% 213,207 18.8% 922,252 81.2%

Hispanic or Latino1 104,357 8.5% 15,097 14.5% 22,779 21.8% 37,876 36.3% 66,481 63.7%

Not Hispanic or Latino 1,031,102 83.6% 58,451 5.7% 116,880 11.3% 175,331 17.0% 855,771 83.0%

Foreign born 98,570 8.0% 15,310 15.5% 24,333 24.7% 39,643 40.2% 58,927 59.8%

Naturalized citizen 37,615 3.1% 3,434 9.1% 7,061 18.8% 10,495 27.9% 27,120 72.1%


Not Hispanic or Latino 26,857 2.2% 1,726 6.4% 3,747 14.0% 5,473 20.4% 21,384 79.6%

Not a citizen 60,955 4.9% 11,876 19.5% 17,272 28.3% 29,148 47.8% 31,807 52.2%


Not Hispanic or Latino 27,004 2.2% 3,933 14.6% 4,456 16.5% 8,389 31.1% 18,615 68.9%1 Latinos/Hispanics may be of any race.



31

Table 5 Sex of Householder1 and Nonfamily Householders by the Self-Sufficiency Standard,




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty







Sex of Householder

Male 855,987 69.4% 41,117 4.8% 100,638 11.8% 141,755 16.6% 714,232 83.4%

Female 378,042 30.6% 47,741 12.6% 63,354 16.8% 111,095 29.4% 266,947 70.6%

Nonfamily2 Householders 390,250 31.6% 36,707 9.4% 40,340 10.3% 77,047 19.7% 313,203 80.3%

Male householder 215,490 17.5% 17,319 8.0% 20,793 9.7% 38,112 17.7% 177,378 82.3%

Female householder 174,760 14.2% 19,388 11.1% 19,547 11.2% 38,935 22.3% 135,825 77.7%1 The householder is the person (or one of the persons) in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented or, if there is no such person, any adult

member, excluding roomers, boarders, or paid employees.

2A nonfamily household is a person maintaining a household while living alone or with nonrelatives only.


Table 6 Number of Children in Household, Age of Youngest Child, and Household Type by the




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty







Age of Youngest Child

Less than 6 yrs 238,276 19.3% 24,764 10.4% 68,182 28.6% 92,946 39.0% 145,330 61.0%

6 to 17 yrs 279,189 22.6% 17,831 6.4% 40,458 14.5% 58,289 20.9% 220,900 79.1%

Number of Children in Household

0 716,564 58.1% 46,263 6.5% 55,352 7.7% 101,615 14.2% 614,949 85.8%

1 or more 517,465 41.9% 42,595 8.2% 108,640 21.0% 151,235 29.2% 366,230 70.8%

1 208,378 16.9% 13,646 6.5% 33,090 15.9% 46,736 22.4% 161,642 77.6%

2 203,839 16.5% 14,220 7.0% 38,507 18.9% 52,727 25.9% 151,112 74.1%

3 76,249 6.2% 9,158 12.0% 23,411 30.7% 32,569 42.7% 43,680 57.3%

4 or more 28,999 2.4% 5,571 19.2% 13,632 47.0% 19,203 66.2% 9,796 33.8%

Household Type

Family households with children

517,465 41.9% 42,595 8.2% 108,640 21.0% 151,235 29.2% 366,230 70.8%

Married couple 390,338 31.6% 19,532 5.0% 69,927 17.9% 89,459 22.9% 300,879 77.1%

Male householder1, no spouse present

36,137 2.9% 3,082 8.5% 9,477 26.2% 12,559 34.8% 23,578 65.2%


90,990 7.4% 19,981 22.0% 29,236 32.1% 49,217 54.1% 41,773 45.9%

1 A family household is a household maintained by a family, defined as a group of two or more persons (one of whom is the householder) residing together and related by birth, marriage, or adoption; family households include any unrelated persons who reside in the household.



32

Table 7 Household Type and Race by the Self-Sufficiency Standard,




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty







Household Type by Race1

Households without children

716,564 58.1% 46,263 6.5% 55,352 7.7% 101,615 14.2% 614,949 85.8%


522,187 42.3% 26,106 5.0% 33,909 6.5% 60,015 11.5% 462,172 88.5%

White (non-Hispanic) 443,637 36.0% 18,306 4.1% 25,471 5.7% 43,777 9.9% 399,860 90.1%

Black (non-Hispanic) 14,997 1.2% 1,337 8.9% 1,206 8.0% 2,543 17.0% 12,454 83.0%


11,278 0.9% 852 7.6% 928 8.2% 1,780 15.8% 9,498 84.2%


Native American 5,921 0.5% 635 10.7% 700 11.8% 1,335 22.5% 4,586 77.5%


194,377 15.8% 20,157 10.4% 21,443 11.0% 41,600 21.4% 152,777 78.6%


Black (non-Hispanic) 8,031 0.7% 1,291 16.1% 757 9.4% 2,048 25.5% 5,983 74.5%


3,874 0.3% 664 17.1% 741 19.1% 1,405 36.3% 2,469 63.7%


Native American 2,611 0.2% 416 15.9% 371 14.2% 787 30.1% 1,824 69.9%

Households with children

517,465 41.9% 42,595 8.2% 108,640 21.0% 151,235 29.2% 366,230 70.8%


426,475 34.6% 22,614 5.3% 79,404 18.6% 102,018 23.9% 324,457 76.1%




11,118 0.9% 839 7.5% 2,431 21.9% 3,270 29.4% 7,848 70.6%


Native American 4,337 0.4% 460 10.6% 1,257 29.0% 1,717 39.6% 2,620 60.4%


90,990 7.4% 19,981 22.0% 29,236 32.1% 49,217 54.1% 41,773 45.9%




1,636 0.1% 322 19.7% 774 47.3% 1,096 67.0% 540 33.0%


Native American 1,628 0.1% 384 23.6% 541 33.2% 925 56.8% 703 43.2%1 The CPS sample is not large enough to produce reliable estimates for American Indians and Alaska Natives, therefore data for this group are not shown

separately. The Race/Ethnicity category of “Other” is calculated but not shown separately in this table as the category is too small to be statistically stable.

2 The householder is the person (or one of the persons) in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented or, if there is no such person, any adult member, excluding roomers, boarders, or paid employees.

3 Hispanics/Latinos may be of any race.



33

Table 8 Educational Attainment of Householder,1 Sex and Race by the Self-Sufficiency Standard,




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty







Educational Attainment

Less than high school 104,615 8.5% 23,418 22.4% 29,727 28.4% 53,145 50.8% 51,470 49.2%

Male 72,911 5.9% 12,095 16.6% 20,698 28.4% 32,793 45.0% 40,118 55.0%

White 31,197 2.5% 3,450 11.1% 6,100 19.6% 9,550 30.6% 21,647 69.4%

Non-White 41,714 3.4% 8,645 20.7% 14,598 35.0% 23,243 55.7% 18,471 44.3%

Female 31,704 2.6% 11,323 35.7% 9,029 28.5% 20,352 64.2% 11,352 35.8%

White 13,018 1.1% 3,579 27.5% 3,214 24.7% 6,793 52.2% 6,225 47.8%

Non-White 18,686 1.5% 7,744 41.4% 5,815 31.1% 13,559 72.6% 5,127 27.4%

High school diploma 239,197 19.4% 21,890 9.2% 43,548 18.2% 65,438 27.4% 173,759 72.6%

Male 167,945 13.6% 9,881 5.9% 26,742 15.9% 36,623 21.8% 131,322 78.2%

White 130,776 10.6% 6,100 4.7% 18,146 13.9% 24,246 18.5% 106,530 81.5%

Non-White 37,169 3.0% 3,781 10.2% 8,596 23.1% 12,377 33.3% 24,792 66.7%

Female 71,252 5.8% 12,009 16.9% 16,806 23.6% 28,815 40.4% 42,437 59.6%

White 50,268 4.1% 6,666 13.3% 10,653 21.2% 17,319 34.5% 32,949 65.5%

Non-White 20,984 1.7% 5,343 25.5% 6,153 29.3% 11,496 54.8% 9,488 45.2%

Some college or Associate’s degree

417,389 33.8% 29,113 7.0% 59,559 14.3% 88,672 21.2% 328,717 78.8%

Male 282,022 22.9% 11,624 4.1% 33,545 11.9% 45,169 16.0% 236,853 84.0%

White 234,979 19.0% 8,751 3.7% 25,012 10.6% 33,763 14.4% 201,216 85.6%

Non-White 47,043 3.8% 2,873 6.1% 8,533 18.1% 11,406 24.2% 35,637 75.8%

Female 135,367 11.0% 17,489 12.9% 26,014 19.2% 43,503 32.1% 91,864 67.9%

White 107,393 8.7% 12,311 11.5% 18,786 17.5% 31,097 29.0% 76,296 71.0%

Non-White 27,974 2.3% 5,178 18.5% 7,228 25.8% 12,406 44.3% 15,568 55.7%

Bachelor’s degree or higher

472,828 38.3% 14,437 3.1% 31,158 6.6% 45,595 9.6% 427,233 90.4%

Male 333,109 27.0% 7,517 2.3% 19,653 5.9% 27,170 8.2% 305,939 91.8%

White 300,014 24.3% 5,727 1.9% 16,441 5.5% 22,168 7.4% 277,846 92.6%

Non-White 33,095 2.7% 1,790 5.4% 3,212 9.7% 5,002 15.1% 28,093 84.9%

Female 139,719 11.3% 6,920 5.0% 11,505 8.2% 18,425 13.2% 121,294 86.8%

White 124,167 10.1% 5,601 4.5% 9,319 7.5% 14,920 12.0% 109,247 88.0%

Non-White 15,552 1.3% 1,319 8.5% 2,186 14.1% 3,505 22.5% 12,047 77.5%1 The householder is the person (or one of the persons) in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented or, if there is no such person, the




34

Table 9 Number of Working Adults in Household by the Self-Sufficiency Standard,




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty







Number of Working Adults in Household

0 54,060 4.4% 29,026 53.7% 7,805 14.4% 36,831 68.1% 17,229 31.9%

1 496,006 40.2% 46,720 9.4% 86,643 17.5% 133,363 26.9% 362,643 73.1%

2 or more 683,963 55.4% 13,112 1.9% 69,544 10.2% 82,656 12.1% 601,307 87.9%


Table 10 Work Status of Adults by the Self-Sufficiency Standard,




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty





Num-ber

Percent of Total


Work Status of Householder

Full-time, year-round 833,074 67.5% 12,053 1.4% 81,958 9.8% 94,011 11.3% 739,063 88.7%

Part-time and/or part-year 315,511 25.6% 42,687 13.5% 67,108 21.3% 109,795 34.8% 205,716 65.2%

Nonworker 85,444 6.9% 34,118 39.9% 14,926 17.5% 49,044 57.4% 36,400 42.6%

Work Status of Adults

One adult in household 396,088 32.1% 54,281 13.7% 59,850 15.1% 114,131 28.8% 281,957 71.2%

Work full-time, year-round 242,939 19.7% 5,545 2.3% 26,997 11.1% 32,542 13.4% 210,397 86.6%

Work part-time and/or part-year

114,461 9.3% 26,507 23.2% 27,215 23.8% 53,722 46.9% 60,739 53.1%

Nonworker 38,688 3.1% 22,229 57.5% 5,638 14.6% 27,867 72.0% 10,821 28.0%

Two or more adults in household

837,941 67.9% 34,577 4.1% 104,142 12.4% 138,719 16.6% 699,222 83.4%

All adults work 644,884 52.3% 10,663 1.7% 61,362 9.5% 72,025 11.2% 572,859 88.8%


254,383 20.6% 494 0.2% 8,404 3.3% 8,898 3.5% 245,485 96.5%


300,659 24.4% 2,314 0.8% 32,364 10.8% 34,678 11.5% 265,981 88.5%


89,842 7.3% 7,855 8.7% 20,594 22.9% 28,449 31.7% 61,393 68.3%

Some adults work 177,661 14.4% 17,093 9.6% 40,613 22.9% 57,706 32.5% 119,955 67.5%


111,307 9.0% 4,720 4.2% 24,029 21.6% 28,749 25.8% 82,558 74.2%


20,568 1.7% 771 3.7% 3,930 19.1% 4,701 22.9% 15,867 77.1%


45,786 3.7% 11,602 25.3% 12,654 27.6% 24,256 53.0% 21,530 47.0%

No adults work 15,115 1.2% 6,564 43.4% 2,167 14.3% 8,731 57.8% 6,384 42.2%



35

Table 11 Household Type by Work Status of Adults, Marital Status of Householder,

Number of Working Adults by the Self-Sufficiency Standard and Federal Poverty Level: Colorado 2000

Total Percent of Households

Below Self-Sufficiency Standard Above Self-Sufficiency

StandardBelow Standard

and Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty







Household Type by Work Status of Adults

Households without children 716,564 58.1% 46,263 6.5% 55,352 7.7% 101,615 14.2% 614,949 85.8%

Two or more workers 349,001 28.3% 6,009 1.7% 16,444 4.7% 22,453 6.4% 326,548 93.6%


222,852 18.1% 2,945 1.3% 12,335 5.5% 15,280 6.9% 207,572 93.1%


103,631 8.4% 18,617 18.0% 20,444 19.7% 39,061 37.7% 64,570 62.3%

No working adults 41,080 3.3% 18,692 45.5% 6,129 14.9% 24,821 60.4% 16,259 39.6%

Households with children 517,465 41.9% 42,595 8.2% 108,640 21.0% 151,235 29.2% 366,230 70.8%

Married couple or male householder

426,475 34.6% 22,614 5.3% 79,404 18.6% 102,018 23.9% 324,457 76.1%



86,013 7.0% 4,661 5.4% 23,258 27.0% 27,919 32.5% 58,094 67.5%


25,830 2.1% 7,764 30.1% 9,286 36.0% 17,050 66.0% 8,780 34.0%

No working adults 5,977 0.5% 4,530 75.8% 871 14.6% 5,401 90.4% 576 9.6%


90,990 7.4% 19,981 22.0% 29,236 32.1% 49,217 54.1% 41,773 45.9%



34,102 2.8% 2,547 7.5% 13,698 40.2% 16,245 47.6% 17,857 52.4%


23,578 1.9% 10,186 43.2% 7,622 32.3% 17,808 75.5% 5,770 24.5%


Marital Status of Householder by Number of Working Adults, in Households with Children

Total households with children 517,465 41.9% 42,595 8.2% 108,640 21.0% 151,235 29.2% 366,230 70.8%

Married 390,338 31.6% 19,532 5.0% 69,927 17.9% 89,459 22.9% 300,879 77.1%


1 working adult 94,330 7.6% 10,428 11.1% 28,101 29.8% 38,529 40.8% 55,801 59.2%

2 or more working adults 290,908 23.6% 5,197 1.8% 41,104 14.1% 46,301 15.9% 244,607 84.1%

Not Married 127,127 10.3% 23,063 18.1% 38,713 30.5% 61,776 48.6% 65,351 51.4%


1 working adult 75,193 6.1% 14,730 19.6% 25,763 34.3% 40,493 53.9% 34,700 46.1%

2 or more working adults 44,054 3.6% 1,906 4.3% 11,996 27.2% 13,902 31.6% 30,152 68.4%



36

Table 12a Top Ten Householders Occupations:1 Colorado 2000

All Households Households Below Self-Sufficiency Standard

Rank Occupation Number Percent Cumulative Percent


Total 1,234,029 100% Total 252,850 100%

1 Managers 141,967 11.5% 11.5% 1 Moving 32,843 13.0% 13.0%

2 Office administration 124,163 10.1% 21.6% 2 Office administration 30,399 12.0% 25.0%

3 Operating machine 101,851 8.3% 29.8% 3 Operating machine 24,900 9.8% 34.9%

4 Sales & cashier 94,749 7.7% 37.5% 4 Construction 22,683 9.0% 43.8%

5 Construction 90,292 7.3% 44.8% 5Gaming, personal care & service workers

19,429 7.7% 51.5%

6 Financial specialists 70,965 5.8% 50.6% 6 Sales & cashier 15,603 6.2% 57.7%


70,821 5.7% 56.3% 7 Food industry 14,967 5.9% 63.6%

8 Moving 69,490 5.6% 61.9% 8 Managers 13,628 5.4% 69.0%

9 Math / computer 55,524 4.5% 66.4% 9 Maintenance / repair 9,600 3.8% 72.8%

10 Maintenance / repair 52,927 4.3% 70.7% 10 Policing / guards 9,496 3.8% 76.5%1 The householder is the person (or one of the persons) in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented or, if there is no such person, the



Table 12b Top Ten Occupations of Householders Below the Self-Sufficiency Standard,

by Sex: Colorado 2000Male Householders Female Householders

Rank Occupation Number Per-cent

Cumulative Percent


Total 141,755 100% Total 111,095 100%

1 Construction 21,705 15.3% 15.3% 1 Office administration 22,572 20.3% 20.3%

2 Operating machine 18,933 13.4% 28.7% 2 Moving 16,057 14.5% 34.8%

3 Moving 16,786 11.8% 40.5% 3Gaming, personal care & service workers

12,597 11.3% 46.1%

4 Managers 9,581 6.8% 47.3% 4 Food industry 10,787 9.7% 55.8%

5 Maintenance / repair 8,810 6.2% 53.5% 5 Sales & cashier 7,802 7.0% 62.8%

6 Office administration 7,827 5.5% 59.0% 6 Medical 6,143 5.5% 68.4%

7 Sales & cashier 7,801 5.5% 64.5% 7 Operating machine 5,967 5.4% 73.7%


6,832 4.8% 69.3% 8 Teachers 5,146 4.6% 78.4%

9 Housekeeping / janitor 6,626 4.7% 74.0% 9 Managers 4,047 3.6% 82.0%

10 Policing / guards 6,151 4.3% 78.3% 10 Policing / guards 3,345 3.0% 85.0%



37

Table 12c Top Ten Occupations of Householders Below the Self-Sufficiency Standard,

by Race/Ethnicity: Colorado 2000White Householders Latino Householders



Total 159,856 100.0% Total 63,657 100.0%

1 Office administration 19,308 12.1% 12.1% 1 Moving 10,886 17.1% 17.1%

2 Moving 17,056 10.7% 22.7% 2 Construction 9,146 14.4% 31.5%


13,372 8.4% 31.1% 3 Operating machine 8,535 13.4% 44.9%

4 Operating machine 13,141 8.2% 39.3% 4 Office administration 6,576 10.3% 55.2%

5 Construction 12,225 7.6% 47.0% 5 Food industry 4,257 6.7% 61.9%

6 Sales & cashier 11,900 7.4% 54.4% 6 Housekeeping / janitor 3,767 5.9% 67.8%

7 Managers 11,220 7.0% 61.4% 7Gaming, personal care & service workers

3,762 5.9% 73.7%

8 Food industry 9,331 5.8% 67.3% 8 Policing / guards 2,635 4.1% 77.9%

9 Maintenance / repair 6,148 3.8% 71.1% 9 Maintenance / repair 2,601 4.1% 81.9%

10 Teachers 5,659 3.5% 74.7% 10 Farming / fishing 2,503 3.9% 85.9%

Black Householders Asian / Pacific Islander Householders



Total 15,811 100.0% Total 7,551 100.0%

1 Office administration 3,134 19.8% 19.8% 1 Operating machine 1,125 14.9% 14.9%

2 Moving 2,689 17.0% 36.8% 2 Moving 890 11.8% 26.7%

3 Operating machine 1,585 10.0% 46.9% 3 Office administration 722 9.6% 36.2%


1,357 8.6% 55.4% 4 Sales & cashier 564 7.5% 43.7%

5 Medical 1,067 6.7% 62.2% 5Gaming, personal care & service workers

536 7.1% 50.8%

6 Policing / guards 808 5.1% 67.3% 6 Food industry 456 6.0% 56.9%

7 Sales and cashier 765 4.8% 72.1% 7 Financial specialists 360 4.8% 61.6%

8 Food industry 653 4.1% 76.3% 8 Policing / guards 351 4.6% 66.3%

9 Construction 539 3.4% 79.7% 9 Law & judicial 303 4.0% 70.3%

10 Teachers 491 3.1% 82.8% 10 Teachers 287 3.8% 74.1%

Native American Householders Native American Householders



Total 4,764 100.0% Total 4,764 100.0%

1 Moving 977 20.5% 20.5% 6 Maintenance / repair 286 6.0% 65.6%

2 Office administration 539 11.3% 31.8% 7 Sales & cashier 265 5.6% 71.1%

3 Construction 520 10.9% 42.7% 8 Food industry 192 4.0% 75.1%

4 Operating machine 432 9.1% 51.8% 9 Policing / guards 184 3.9% 79.0%


369 7.7% 59.6% 10 Managers 168 3.5% 82.5%



38

Table 13 Household Receipt of Public Assistance by the Self-Sufficiency Standard,




Below Standard and

Below Poverty

Below Standard and

Above Poverty







Public (Cash) Assistance1

Received 21,637 1.8% 8,124 37.5% 6,578 30.4% 14,702 67.9% 6,935 32.1%

Did not receive 1,212,392 98.2% 80,734 6.7% 157,414 13.0% 238,148 19.6% 974,244 80.4%1 Public assistance includes cash assistance from welfare programs, TANF, general assistance from Bureau of Indian Affairs, etc.


Produced and created by Hanna Design. www.hannadesign.com

OVERLOOKED and UNDERCOUNTED - Home - CCLP...STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET IN COLORADO By Diana M....

Documents

Transcript of OVERLOOKED and UNDERCOUNTED - Home - CCLP...STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET IN COLORADO By Diana M....